The Great Carbon Credit Con

[Crazy Dazz]

For some bizarre reason in Perth, we have Gas Resellers (much like the NBN). They don't have to do anything, don't even need a physical footprint in WA, they just send you the bill.
They all offer some level of discount to the stipulated tariff, so I suppose that's a good thing. And they offer various little perks, like flybuys, free Amazon Prime, etc.
Now the mob I went with, had another little lure, they claim that 25% of their energy is from renewables.
Obviously I called BS on that, I KNOW where the gas comes from.
at which point the customer service person admitted that actually they just pay a fee to be able to claim this. They wouldn't say how much, but I have to assume it's peanuts. They were already in front on price compared to the Flybuys and Velocity offers, and they paid my Amazon bill for a year.
And this isn't some option that I pay more for, it's gratis.

So to me, the obvious question is "why not pay half a cent more and claim 100% renewable?"
But would that make the BS too obvious?
This notion that we can solve all of the world's carbon emission problems just by paying a few cents in the dollar for "Carbon Credits"? Something just doesn't add up!

Logically this leaves only one of three possibilities:

1. We don't have to worry about Carbon Emissions or Fossil Fuels. Just plant a few trees and the pronlem is solved.
2. "Carbon Credits" aren't what we think they are.
3. Somebody , somewhere, is cooking the books. Either double-dipping and claiming credits on renewables, grossly overestimating the carbon locked up, outright lying, or selling their own energy from carbon-neutral courses, and then also selling the credits.

[simon varley]

number 3

or

4 outright lies

[wodahs]

this will be CoupeKings new tin foil hat thread
back when i was running a farm out your way Daz (bakershill) many many moons ago (early 90's i think)
there was carbon credits and the scheme
where the farmers (owners) were paid for planting trees and carbon credits for the ongoing up keep
so it wouldnt surprise me this is coming in to play somewhere
just like the solar panel scheme where you get credits for making power these are in exchange for cash when selling back in to the system as rec's (or what ever its called) above your Kw price you get for putting in to the system
but with trees its a factor of what they think the carbon being taken out of the environment is and you can sell this offset amount

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by wodahs

there was carbon credits and the scheme
where the farmers (owners) were paid for planting trees and carbon credits for the ongoing up keep

There should be only three ways of generating Carbon Credits:

1. Reforestation. Growing Trees that are left there in perpetuity.
2. Plantation Trees used for timber products, structural, plywoods, etc.
3. artificial means of extracting atmospheric CO2, converting to Carbon, AND storing that Carbon Permanently

Planting Trees is great, should be more of it.
Just think, with access to water (using either solar-powered RO plants) or harnessing and piping the excess seasonal water in our north, Australia could be transformed (back?) into beautiful forests and rain-forests.

But the current status, that implies we can offset carbon so easily, by paying a few cents on the dollar, just screams BS to me.

The fact that number 3 above is apparently financially viable, suggests that such schemes are getting paid huge amounts (by their government) to lock up carbon. And that just doesn't gel with the apparently low price of purchasing those credits.

After all, there's an inherent problem with purchasing "nothing". There's no good, service, currency, etc, and nothing tangible actually changes hands. And unlike say derivatives, there's no corresponding debit.

One further possibility, and this truly sickens me, is that this is going to become the latest way of exploiting developing nations. Some poor family in Africa will get paid a pittance to plant trees, so that some rich schmuck in Melbourne can feel better about burning fossil fuels.

[rare ss]

Trouble with trees is they tend to burn down every 10-20 years and release their carbon

[wodahs]

the farms I knew that took this up were on your first point Daz
reforestation so to speak of as wind breaks for paddocks and live stock
and to slow/stop the rise of salt levels in the soil
so they were permanently dedicating a fair amount of land to this along wetlands and fence lines and ridge lines to improve the rest of the farm able areas